Probability of the existence of God

When anyone says that "faith is blind", they do not mean that faith is based on an absolute vacuum of nothingness. What they mean is that faith is based on unverifiable information. Which means that it "may as well be" or "is likely just as good" as being based on an absolute vacuum of nothingness.An illusion is information. It just happens to be information that is not a correct description of reality.We agreed that faith is based on information (Message 169). We have Level 1 information (unverifiable) and Level 2 information (verifiable). It is obvious that your faith-information is Level 1 information. Which means that faith is based on unverifiable information. Which means that faith is based on the exact same kind of information that an illusion is based on.There is no stalemate.If you're trying to say that anyone arguing "faith is blind" is trying to say that faith is based on absolutely nothing at all... that's not something anyone actually thinks. There's no stalemate there either. You'll win that arguement all day. It's just that, well, it's a meaningless arguement.Of course there is "something" that blind faith is based on, that "something" is just not verifiable. It's based on Level 1 information. Therefore, it's probability of being a correct description of reality is equivalent to that of an illusion.

The above statement makes no sense at all. If a person "wouldn't/couldn't get it" then what use is it?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Probability that God exist. Here are my take on this subject based on my limited research.I Proofs that God exist:
a) Existence of nation of Israel”from Jacob to Israel meaning ”one who struggled with God. = 8
b) His words the Bible contains: accurate history, & prophesies fulfilled = 7
c) This logic:
Premise (P1) : Input + process = output
P2: Everything is output, and every output needs an intelligent being to get the right process
P3: Every rule has an exception. This rule of exception will be absurd to apply to any of the “input”, “process” or output. Therefore, by process of elimination the rule of exception must apply to that intelligent being.
Conclusion: From P1 to P3, we can conclude that although everything is made, there is one not made, the ultimate intelligent being”that is he is not subject to P1. = 8
d) Irreducible complexity of a cell proves an intelligent creator = 8
d) There were witnesses”hundreds of them”willing to die for their faith that there is God. On the other hand, few had been willing to face death to hold to their beliefs that there is no God = 6
e) The universe in all its wander and mysteries is proof that there is an intelligent creator = 7
f) Some well known atheists have converted to Theists = 5
Total = 49Probability there is God = 49 / ( 49 + 37) = 57%II. Proofs there is no God
a) We can’t see, touch, or hear him = 7
b) His supposed to be words, the Bible is full of discrepancies = 6
c) The theory of evolution proves there is no God = 4
d) The complexity of a cell could be explained by science, someday, thereby making God redundant = 6
e) Science has theorized that the universe came to being by chance and not by an intelligent being = 7
e) Many believers have converted to atheism = 7
Total = 37; or 43 % = 37 / (49+37)Summary: God exist = 57%; God does not exist = 43%I am not saying this is fool proof. Its just my take on things. So? Its better to believe in the existence of God.

OK, I'm calling Poe on DoubtingToo. I don't see how anyone could make that probability argument with a straight face, and in combination with his 'flow chart' thread it is just becoming untenable that anyone could seriously come up with 2 such totally specious arguments.TTFN,WK

Lighten up, WK. Didn't I say that my take is NOT fool proof? It's based on my limited research. The original questioner asked for a probability? I gave him one--which I realize may not be acceptable to others.I'm not into arguing w/ anyone. I'm trying to contribute my dime's worth of kiddy research.

We have a humor section. Post "funny" things there.This is not the place for it.Your post was, at best, "funny". If meant to be taken seriously it is more sad than funny.

Perhaps you were not aware - this is a debate forum. Arguing is what we do here.And your "probability" post was nothing more than a series of numbers pulled from the thin air of your imagination. It has nothing to do with actual probabilities at all, let alone the probability of the existence of a deity. If you don't want to have your posts torn down, post something more relavent to the topic than personal speculation, and do so with logical consistency. If you continue as you are, you can expect mockery and suspensions in your future.

Also your lucky colour is blue and your lucky number is 14.TTFN,WK

Hmm, interesting post there, may I ask how you arrived at the numerical values you put after your "proofs"?Some further remarks: It contains far more inaccurate history, and I haven't seen ANY prophecy fulfilled A cell is not "irreducibly complex" There are hundreds of people who think they are Napoleon. Further more, it kind of figures that when you don't believe i god, you also don't believe in an afterlife, and therefore aren't very willing to give up your life in this world. I assume you mean wonder? Anyow, why would this point to a creator? Argumet form authority. It would be the same as the pope "converting"to atheism, and everybody following suit, everybody would be idiots then. Really? Would you point out to me where the theory says: "and so we come to the conclusion there is no god"? It IS explained by science. And science could be wrong. Same as above.Summary: You pulled numbers out of thin air and applied them to arguments that are wrong. Then you come to the conlusion of some percentage of likelihood of god's existence. Not very scientific is it?As for: You're right it's not "fool proof", it's in fact very wrong.

---

I hunt for the truth

LOL. What is this? It reminds me of some of the famous quotes of George W. Bush:"I know the human being and fish can co-exist peacefully""It's your money. You paid for it""It's clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas."I simply love the way you came up with that 57% probability. Priceless. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Possibilities never guarantees outcome. That's why in a 999999999 vs. 0.000000001 probability ratio, the narrow chance may still come true.So will life go on after physical death, does soul exist? That's everyone's question concerning everyone's life. It is a must religious question demanding a religious answer.Red unicorn is not a common belief and thus is not a valid skeptics. In contrary, more than at least 50% human beings are consently religious. Ohters are religious but they failed to bring it to their own full awareness. They have either to believe that "it does not exist" or to believe that "it does exist". No one can be in the middle of the fence before his 3D physcal body turns to dusts.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

We have already seen the trouble this thinking gets into.What "correct description of reality" entails is merely some folks adherence to a convention which states something along the lines of "reality is the agreement of many regarding an observation". There doesn't appear to be anything but said convention supporting the idea that what is real be arrived at thus. Moreover, there is nothing but convention supporting the notion that the probability as to what constitutes real is increased in this fashion.Certainly, neither notion is verifiable (unless it engages in circular reasoning). Does that fact not render this also "likely just as good as"? And if not, why not?For unless there is something to raise one category of information above the other (in terms of its ability to report on reality) then we might as well call 100 persons observation of a hot air balloon an observation based on blind faith - in the sense that their observation doesn't verifiably reflect reality.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

You are jumping ahead too quickly. Do not confuse the hot-air balloon example with what Level 1 and Level 2 information is.The hot-air balloon example is simply meant to show how people can be wrong. To show how mistakes happen, to show that we are not perfect, and it's better to double-check our information before assuming it is fact.Mr. Balls claiming a hot air balloon exists is Level 1 information.100 other people claiming the hot air balloon does not exist is still Level 1 information (it's just marginally more reliable than Mr. Balls' possible mistake).We don't move into Level 2 information until we can verify the information.Mr. Balls' claim remains in Level 1 information until he can verify it. His claim just becomes even-more unlikely because so many other people were equally capable of making the same observation, but did not. Perhaps Mr. Balls had a video camera, and we can view that to verify his observation.Perhaps the balloon is always there, then anyone can climb the mountain and always see it.Either of these would allow us to verify Mr. Balls' claim. Upon verification, his claim then becomes Level 2 information.But, sometimes we are not able to verify a claim. Maybe there were no video cameras available, or the balloon went away. This doesn't change the fact that Mr. Balls' claim remains unverifiable. This doesn't change the fact that we could have verified his claim. This doesn't change the fact that his claim remains extremely similar to that of an illusion. Yes, relying on Level 2 information as opposed to Level 1 information has led the human race into such "trouble" as:-getting out of the dark ages
-skyscrapers and other architectural wonders
-electronics, including the computer you're using
-medical advances beyond anything imaginable 100 years agoWhile, on the other hand, relying on Level 1 information has led the human race into such trouble as:-entering the dark ages
-remaining in the dark ages for hundreds of years
-thinking that a war on terror is a good, efficient use of resourcesIf you really think the two are "equally unreliable" in any practical sense of the term, you may want to cover up, I think your bias is showing.

If we do not assume a world in which we are the sole dreamer of a subjective reality then, from the evidence at hand, we must conclude that we inhabit an obvjective reality inhabited by individual and independently conscious beings.If we also accept that each individual consciousness is capable of individual and independent self deception (delusion, fantasy, call it what you will) then it stands to reason that a collective experience is a more reliable description of that objective reality than an individual subjective, and potentially delusional, version of "reality"How can you meaningfully claim otherwise?If a drugged out loon sees dragons as he walks down Oxford Street is that reality as real as the buses, taxis and shops experienced by the rest of us? If not why not?

Hi, Iano. You have repeated evidence that slamming on the brakes makes the car stop. In fact, this becomes ingrained so much in you that you instinctively try to stomp on the brakes in emergencies, even when you're not in the driver's seat and have no brake pedal in front of you. Because of this, you know that it's not the act of stomping that stops the car, but the act of stomping on the brake pedal.Compare this with God: you have probably had countless inspirations or spiritual manifestations in your life that have resonated with you somehow and convinced you that God is real. But, you don't have any way of knowing whether it's your belief or the object of your belief that is doing what you are attributing to God. It could just be your belief in the myth that makes the myth resonate with you.Maybe proverbially "stomping on the pedal" has some sort of influence on your spiritual wellbeing and belief system, but you don't have a way to distinguish between stomping on the pedal and just stomping. This is because you have plenty of "evidence" of the effects of stomping, but you can't show whether or not it's that you're actually stomping on anything in particular, or if it's just that you're stomping.For example, I feel inspiration when I pray to God. I have no evidence that this is because God or the Holy Spirit is inspiring me. But, I do have evidence that it is somehow connected to the act of prayer. So, I can say that praying to God makes gives me inspiration, but I cannot actually state that God is giving me inspiration based on the available evidence.That's what makes it blind: you are concluding an underlying cause that is not distinguishable by the available evidence from other possible underlying causes.That's what Straggler means when he says, "evidence of everything is evidence of nothing."

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.